The list was made by a large number of editors and artists, so don't be surprised that your obscure post-progressive dark trip hop album didn't get to the first place.Sgt. Pepper is wildly regarded as one of the best albums of all time, and from a historical context, it makes sense- Music has never seen such a thing before.In addition, the title and the cover art are extremely iconic, which only makes the album more well known.Is it necessarily everyone's favorite album? No. I probably won't put it in my top 10 myself. But, as a whole, Sgt. Pepper changed the world.

>>51777511>it's like saying "In the Court of the Crimson King" MUST BE a better album than "Lateralus" simply because it was listed as an influence.

Here's my point- I didn't say Sgt. Pepper is the best album, there are a lot of albums I like better. I'm just trying to convince you that it's reasonable for Sgt. Pepper to appear at the top of the list- Since the list is big enough, the top album should be an absolute game changer. Besides maybe DSOTM or Revolver, I don't think any other album deserves it better.

>>51777554>point being: the progression of music would be only slightly different, if at all, compared to what it is today.Those essays made compelling arguments to the contrary.

>The Rolling Stones exist.Considering that the Rolling Stones were often presented as being the anti-Beatles and generally worked with rock music quite distinct from the Beatles', that's not really a compelling thing to bring up.

>>51777561>>51777695Yet Sgt. Pepper is the Number One album of the RS 500 not just because of its firsts – it is simply the best of everything the Beatles ever did as musicians, pioneers and pop stars, all in one place.

>the best of everything the Beatles ever did>the best of everything>the best>the Beatles

this list was obviously compiled by a Beatlophile (possibly the remaining surviving members of the Beatles) and is slanted as such.

>>51777857>is it narrower than Sgt. Peppers being the best album ever?1) I never supported the sentiment of Sgt. Pepper's (or any album) being the undisputed best album ever.2) Actually, yes, that godawful overview of the history of rock music is narrower than simply stating that Sgt. Pepper's is the best music album.

>>51777872>Not really. They just happened to end up a good position to be highly influential.

Suggesting that they couldn't just simply "end up" in that position haphazardly, or that they could have possibly forced their way into that position without wealthy businessmen bankrolling their publicity train, constitutes a pretty fucking proper response m8.

>>51777941>it really isn't "blaming" capitalism, it's merely a logically simple A = A level type statement for anyone who understands how capitalism works.Except you totally haven't demonstrated an understanding of how capitalism works. You just randomly blamed corporations for the Beatles being so popular, even though it had much more to do with the cultural and societal changes going on during the 1960s and the Beatles managing to be at the forefront of the British Invasion. Of course there were exchanges of currency and products involved, but that doesn't really get at the heart of why the Beatles became a big, influential group.

>>51778036in what way is being "at the forefront of the British Invasion" not a product of a record label taking an interest in promoting them to the world as a product? were there not, purely as a matter of statistics and probability, a minimum of several dozen bands doing similar enough things? it seems unlikely that they were at the forefront purely based on artistic merit. they were 4 pretty white Brits that young bitches would swoon over. and so they were packaged and sold to the world. BAM

the "cultural and societal changes" were what made them an incredibly profitable, exploitable commodity.

i understand capitalism well enough. just stop it, Tribune. my head hurts. D=

>>51778111>in what way is being "at the forefront of the British Invasion" not a product of a record label taking an interest in promoting them to the world as a product?Where did I say it wasn't?

>were there not, purely as a matter of statistics and probability, a minimum of several dozen bands doing similar enough things?Where did I say there weren't? In fact, many of those kind of bands made up many of the Beatles well-known contemporaries.

>it seems unlikely that they were at the forefront purely based on artistic merit. they were 4 pretty white Brits that young bitches would swoon over. and so they were packaged and sold to the world. BAMExcept this is a really shallow assessment of how things actually went down.

>the "cultural and societal changes" were what made them an incredibly profitable, exploitable commodity.And?

>i understand capitalism well enough.I doubt it. You seem to have a very elementary understanding of economics combined with even less knowledge regarding fields such as sociology and musicology.

>>51778321>Of course there were exchanges of currency and products involved, but that doesn't really get at the heart of why the Beatles became a big, influential group.

>Where did I say there weren't? In fact, many of those kind of bands made up many of the Beatles well-known contemporaries.therefore, any of those bands could've filled their spot in musical and cultural history given equal publicity.

>>51778512>therefore, any of those bands could've filled their spot in musical and cultural history given equal publicity.Except many of those groups (e.g. The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, etc.) frequently were given similar amounts of publicity and exposure.

>>51777765>earlier blues artists -> the Rolling Stones -> Led Zeppelin -> Black SabbathCorrect me if I'm mistaken, but weren't Zeppelin and Sabbath formed around the same and already creating two distinctive (if similar) styles?

>>51778746Well said anon. Half of the top 20 greatest albums recorded in the history of music were either by The Beatles or Bob Dylan. Clearly we are all wrong and this magazine is the height of music criticism.

>>51778806Led Zeppelin formed in 1968.Black Sabbath formed in 1968.>>51778808That's why they included a compilation of Elvis singles that appealed to nostalgia and didn't include Harry Smith's Anthology of American Folk Music, right?

>>51778976>tells us that Ozzy said Led Zeppelin was a huge influence on him>tells us that Ozzy's sayings shouldn't be taking seriouslySo...Ozzy doesn't count as a source for Led Zeppelin being an influence on Black Sabbath?

>>51778968Not only a Best Of but a Best Of of the most watered down pop-reggae made specifically for American pop charts. Legend is the worst Marley has to offer and arguably the worst the genre has to offer.

>>51779064>what was the point you were trying to make?I wasn't aiming to make a definitive point. I was just responding to your supposed arguments for why the Beatles were unimportant with reasons why said arguments just don't work.

>I've lost it among the loopholes in your logicWhere? I believe I was being quite direct.

>>51779179>I wasn't aiming to make a definitive point. I was just responding to your supposed arguments for why the Beatles were unimportant with reasons why said arguments just don't work.same here.

>Where? I believe I was being quite direct.>>51778512The Beatles were an easily replaceable artist. Any number of other artists could've filled the gap (or not) and the "music continuum" would've gone along just the same.>The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

>>51779286>"We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs...'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid... I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."A quote from Bob Dylan.

>>51779286>The Beatles were an easily replaceable artist. Any number of other artists could've filled the gap (or not) and the "music continuum" would've gone along just the same.You've yet to prove this to be plausible, though.

>>The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach BoysAll contemporaries who coexisted with the Beatles within their own niches in popular rock music.

>>51779436>You've yet to prove this to be plausible, though.I've proven that it's plausible, but I obviously can't turn back time and slay the Beatles to see what happens (no matter how much I wish I could).

it's a speculative topic we've been talking about that really has no definitive answer.

>All contemporaries who coexisted with the Beatles within their own niches in popular rock music.I simply disagree that the Beatles are a mandatory condition of having the rock/pop music we have today (given this length of time).

>I simply disagree that the Beatles are a mandatory condition of having the rock/pop music we have today (given this length of time).Well, you'd be wrong then. There's just no avoiding the influence if not just Beatles, but all the other major 60s rock and pop groups who mutually influenced each other and subsequent generations. You don't have to like the Beatles or what they influenced, and there's plenty of music and subcultures that's outside their influence, but denying it altogether and saying thing would have been the same without them is just irrational.

>>51779653>Not really.but I have though, I'm guessing you just won't accept it.

>Well, you'd be wrong then. There's just no avoiding the influence if not just Beatles, but all the other major 60s rock and pop groups who mutually influenced each other and subsequent generations. You don't have to like the Beatles or what they influenced, and there's plenty of music and subcultures that's outside their influence, but denying it altogether and saying thing would have been the same without them is just irrational.among the myriad of genres and artists that existed at the time, I find it hard to believe that the Beatles were so heavily influential that music couldn't have gone about it's way just the way it has.more than likely if the Beatles didn't exist (hopefully I've slaughtered them and we're somehow still talking about them in a time paradox) a band much like the Beatles would have been influential and filled the gap more or less.

>>51779840>but I have thoughWhere? Cite a specific post where you fundamentally refute the Beatles' importance.

>among the myriad of genres and artists that existed at the time, I find it hard to believe that the Beatles were so heavily influential that music couldn't have gone about it's way just the way it has.I don't think you understand how thoroughly ingrained the existence of bands like the Beatles or the Rollings Stones are into popular music. You seem to treat these bands like cogs in a clock when they're really like organisms in an environment, all having adapted to specific roles in accordance to their nature and nurture. You can't just switch them out with similar creatures and expect the same ecosystem.

>more than likely if the Beatles didn't a band much like the Beatles would have been influential and filled the gap more or less.Except there's the "more or less". How more or less? How do you know the gap would have been filled at all? Do you really understand the number of variables in work here?

>>51779305>Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltranewait whatno they haven't, Louis Armstrong occupies the top spot in terms of significance and anyone with entry-level Jazz knowledge knows thisnot even reading the rest of your shit post tbh after that one

Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.